Letter of the Day: Seeking a reasonable limit to elections idiocy

I do “get it,” and I also am sick of it, as well! I get six to 10 emails every day from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee or Al Franken or Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Elizabeth Warren or Bill Clinton, et al. I get hammered by all the folks who wrote Henderson as well.

In addition, I can expect a call from “No Name” at about 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. every day. I have learned to ignore “No Name,” as “No Name” wants the same thing as my email denizens.

Now, I would understand this if it did not go on forever. An urgent message “needing your attention” in my inbox in January for an election in November is neither urgent nor needing my attention.

A lot of Democrats resent Charlie “Chameleon” Crist refusing to debate Nan Rich. Charlie just might lose this primary to the real Democrat. If so, Gov. Rick Scott will have blown $100 million running against the wrong opponent.

Campaigns never end. There really should be some reasonable limit to this idiocy.

Why can’t we have publicly funded, limited financing for campaigns that don’t cost the moon and that don’t last forever? The United Kingdom has reined it in — why can’t we?

Surely we can agree that our democracy requires honest and fair elections in order to remain viable. Do we really want the best government money can buy?

I do contribute to candidates I support. I think “grassroots” funding must be available to counter corporate special interest campaign money flooding to special interest candidates. Democrats don’t have big spenders like that. Until we can fix our broken campaign funding and election system, it is up to individuals to step up and support the opposition to a corporate oligarchy.